vroniplagwikiaorg_de-20200216-history
Oop/Fragment 071 01
{{SMWFragment |Bearbeiter=Annunzio |Kuerzel=Oop |Typus=KomplettPlagiat |SeiteArbeit=071 |ZeileArbeit=1-16 |Quelle=Yego 1984 |SeiteQuelle=69-70 |ZeileQuelle=69:23-25; 70:1-12 |TextArbeit=practice of divorce though that too had the authority of Moses behind it. Yet  his teaching does presuppose that marriage is monogamous, it would hardly  be true that a man who divorces his wife and marries another would be  guilty precisely of adultery (Mark 10:11), if he had the right to marry another even without divorcing the first"128 Hillman supports Hastings sic  contention that the New Testament does not directly condemn polygyny,  though it does seem to imply disapproval. "To recognize this is not to deny  that the values may also be realized, and perhaps even more fully in a  monogamous union. The point here is that while the New Testament  explicitly repudiates...prostitution, and homosexuality (cf. Rom.1:24-27,  1Cor. 6:9, 12-18. Eph. 4:19), which compromise the christian sic ideal of  marriage there is no prohibition against simultaneous polygamy".129 Karl Barth, sic contends that the New Testament is silent on the issue of  polygyny. We can hardly point with certainty to a single text of the New  Testament in which polygyny is expressly forbidden and monogamy  universally accepted.130 During the period of Jesus, there was no sic much ... ---- 128 Hastings, Adrian (1973) p. 7 129 Hillman, E. (1975) p. 140 130 Barth, Karl (1961) 111/4 p. 223; Im Neuen Testament stellt sich die Frage der Vielehe nicht. Karl Barth schreibt: „Es ist im Neuen Testament so, daß die Vielehe faktisch wie auf einen Schlag verschwunden scheint, daß alle von der Ehe handelnden Stellen sich mit großer Selbstverständlichkeit auf das Verhältnis je eines Mannes und einer Frau zu beziehen scheinen, daß man aber andererseits kaum auf eine Stelle mit voller Gewißheit  den Finger legen kann, in der die Vielehe ausdrücklich verboten, die Einehe allgemein geboten wäre. Gerade wenn man wenigstens wirklich streng biblisch-gesetzlich denken wollte, könnte man ehrlicherweise unmöglich zu dem Ergebnis kommen, daß wir es in dieser Sache mit einem unbedingten Gebot Gottes zu tun haben.“ See also Bujo Bénézet (1993) p. 107: „Es ist natürlich unbestreitbar, daß die Liebe, so wie sie im Neuen Testament verstanden wird, zur monogamen Ehe fuhren muß. Da jedoch die neutestamentliche Lehre die Polygamie nicht ausdrücklich verurteilt, da ferner eheliche Liebe und Treue auch in der Polygamie nicht ausgeschlossen werden müssen, ist es denkbar, die Vielehe als Zwischenstufe zur monogamen Liebe zu akzeptieren.“ See also Schinzer, Reinhard (1976) p. 156: Aus den afrikansichen sic Heiratsbräuchen können und müssen theologische Lehren gezogen werden, weil sie sich nicht einfach mit |TextQuelle=69 :practice of divorce though that too had the authority of Moses behind it. Yet his teaching does presuppose that marriage is monogamous, it would hardly be true that a man who divorces his wife and marries another would be  guilty precisely of adultery (Mark 10:11), if he had the right to marry another even without divorcing the first.15 Hillman supports Hastings sic  contention that the New Testament does not directly condemn polygamy, though it does seem to imply disapproval. :To recognize this is not to deny  that the values may also be realized, and perhaps even more fully in a monogamous union. The point here is that while the New 70 :Testament explicitly repudiates...prostitution, and homosexuality (cf. Rom.1:24-27,  1Cor. 6:9, 12-18. Eph. 4:19), which compromise the christian sic ideal of  marriage there is no prohibition against simultaneous polygamy".16 Karl Barth, sic contends that the New Testament is silent on the issue of Polygamy.17 We can hardly point with certainty to a single text (of the New Testament) in which polygamy is expressly forbidden and monogamy universally accepted. There is not much discussion about polygamy during Jesus' period. ---- 82 15 Hastings p. 7. 83 16 Hillman p. 140. 17 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics Vol 4 Ed. by G. W. Bromley, Trans by G. T. Thompson & H. Knight, (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1961) p. 199. |FragmentStatus=Unfertig |Sichter=Annunzio }}